VIA Rail

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by someone123

$1B for a 50-year project is not a significant portion of tax revenues in an AB-scale context for example, and it can't be compared directly to different types of expenses like spending $1B on transfers or wages this fiscal year.

There's no way this thing comes in at $1B. Just look at what AB studied as HSR costs and take out some of the grade separation costs and you'll get a ballpark. I think it's closer to $3B to get their own corridor. And that's without a lot of grade separation.

[Urban_Sky]

Here is the link again:

http://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=242268&page=3

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's no way this thing comes in at $1B. Just look at what AB studied as HSR costs and take out some of the grade separation costs and you'll get a ballpark. I think it's closer to $3B to get their own corridor. And that's without a lot of grade separation.

You're adding extra meaning to my posts that I'm not writing and didn't intend. I didn't say that any specific rail project for the Calgary-Edmonton corridor will cost $1B. My point is that it is common for us to look at dollar figures and this makes capital expenditures look relatively imposing and recurring payouts or future commitments look less significant than they are. We therefore have a bias against capital spending and toward transfers and recurring spending.

Transfers and entitlements have grown much more as a percentage of our spending in Canada than capital spending or maintenance on physical infrastructure. We can't build rail ROWs but we can increase health care spending by 5% a year.

If we adjusted our norms upward when it comes to what is or isn't a reasonable level of spending on capital projects, suddenly a bunch of stuff would look possible, and the impact on our budgets might amount to a fraction of a year of 2000's swollen health care and retirement spending.

The "what region has the best ROI?" question is not a great way to look at this regardless of our capital spending levels. Canadians live in different regions with comparatively little mobility between them. Canadians demand that their home region have good service levels. They're not going to support sending all of their tax money someplace they never see because it has a better ROI.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I think Calgary-Edmonton happens in the next two decades.

But there's no way to sell anybody on any major passenger rail project in Canada without first showing that it can be profitable in a corridor with tens of millions of annual pax.

Keep in mind that HFR was first meant to be executed with private sector funding. And the proposal was pitched that way after VIA Corporate realized that asking for government funding wasn't going anywhere. Ironically, it now looks like a great public sector project for stimulus. Let's hope it actually gets built by 2025. That construction and operational experience will give VIA enough knowledge to start bidding for a Calgary-Edmonton line.

I've never really "got" the reason for private sector funding of something like this. The advantage of the private model is that they can design and operate something that will make money, and if they go bust no problem.

For something like HFR where essentially they design everything and will keep operating it, they are essentially saying, "this is what we are going to build, give us money" (I think?). What is the advantage of using private money? Other than keeping it off the public books, which is not a real advantage. The private sector logically has to charge a premium.

I guess at least the private sector is more likely to find the "true" cost to build and operate something, so there should be more cost discipline and less likelihood of the project going overbudget.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by someone123

You're adding extra meaning to my posts that I'm not writing and didn't intend. I didn't say that any specific rail project for the Calgary-Edmonton corridor will cost $1B. My point is that it is common for us to look at dollar figures and this makes capital expenditures look relatively imposing and recurring payouts or future commitments look less significant than they are. We therefore have a bias against capital spending and toward transfers and recurring spending.

Transfers and entitlements have grown much more as a percentage of our spending in Canada than capital spending or maintenance on physical infrastructure.

If we adjusted our norms upward when it comes to what is or isn't a reasonable level of spending on capital projects, suddenly a bunch of stuff would look possible, and the impact on our budgets might amount to a fraction of a year of 2000's swollen health care and retirement spending.

That may all be true. But it doesn't stop people from bitching. If it were that easy, HFR at ~$4B would already have shovels in the ground. But if that's a high risk for politicians, just imagine what projects with lower return would mean politically.

For every politician, the opportunity cost is real. $4B for a Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal rail line or $12M worth of ribbon cutting in every riding in Canada?

The hatred for big cities and investment in them is now coming full circle to bite non-TOM cities in the six.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I've never really "got" the reason for private sector funding of something like this. The advantage of the private model is that they can design and operate something that will make money, and if they go bust no problem.

For something like HFR where essentially they design everything and will keep operating it, they are essentially saying, "this is what we are going to build, give us money" (I think?). What is the advantage of using private money? Other than keeping it off the public books, which is not a real advantage. The private sector logically has to charge a premium.

I guess at least the private sector is more likely to find the "true" cost to build and operate something, so there should be more cost discipline and less likelihood of the project going overbudget.

Money laundering and political expediency. Or rather, Canadian pension funds have become massive global institutional investors in infrastructure. Don't know if you read this:

https://business.financialpost.com/news/...on-plans-the-new-masters-of-the-universe

They are also among the largest private equity investors in the world:

https://www.benefitscanada.com/investmen...top-global-equity-investors-report-93631

The government was hoping to create a vehicle to get them to invest some of that capital at home, while building infrastructure with artificially low taxes.

That all may sound bad. Till you realize the alternative is not building any infrastructure, as we've been doing the last few years. The private sector is also better at maintaining infrastructure. They tend not to let it degrade or overwhelm it to the point of losses and significant accrual of capital liabilities.

[milomilo]

Yeah as I wrote that, I started thinking about some other reasons for doing so.

Would a potential investor in HFR be responsible for maintenance? I assume anything like this would be a similar situation to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (HS1) which is currently owned partly by the Ontario Teachers' Pension Fund - but there they apparently (according to wikipedia) contract the maintenance back to a subsidiary of Network Rail.

I guess even if a private investor did allow VIA to do the maintenance, they would at least pay strict attention to it. Unlike the Federal government who might be more inclined to ask "do you really need to spend this money in this budget period, can't we punt that cost 10 years down the road?".

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Yeah as I wrote that, I started thinking about some other reasons for doing so.

Would a potential investor in HFR be responsible for maintenance? I assume anything like this would be a similar situation to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (HS1) which is currently owned partly by the Ontario Teachers' Pension Fund - but there they apparently (according to wikipedia) contract the maintenance back to a subsidiary of Network Rail.

I guess even if a private investor did allow VIA to do the maintenance, they would at least pay strict attention to it. Unlike the Federal government who might be more inclined to ask "do you really need to spend this money in this budget period, can't we punt that cost 10 years down the road?".

Think of the 407 ETR. Everyone bitches about how expensive it is. But from a purely management perspective, the consortium does a fantastic job. They build just enough lanes to be profitable. And price high enough to have traffic flowing. Maintenance is top notch. There's no way any of the above would be true if it were a publicly owned toll highway.

That said, I think VIA would actually do a fantastic job if it owned its Corridor. And I think the primary motivation was to keep the capital spending off the government's books.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Think of the 407 ETR. Everyone bitches about how expensive it is. But from a purely management perspective, the consortium does a fantastic job. They build just enough lanes to be profitable. And price high enough to have traffic flowing. Maintenance is top notch. There's no way any of the above would be true if it were a publicly owned toll highway.

That said, I think VIA would actually do a fantastic job if it owned its Corridor. And I think the primary motivation was to keep the capital spending off the government's books.

The 407 is a good example. I've only been on it once, but was impressed. I don't particularly like the whole concept of that toll road, but you are right, the toll price is self evidently worth it for the product.

If VIA could make HFR profitable (and I know there are different ways of defining that), it would be fantastic. I don't by any means think that a rail line has to be profitable to be worth operating (any non-toll road wouldn't meet that criteria), but it was more expensive to shut down rail service on the corridor than keep it, it would be effectively immune from politicians trying to shut it down, and VIA would have real credibility.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

To my knowledge VIA hasn't proposed Calgary-Edmonton and why would they? That proposal is absolutely guaranteed to have lower ROI/IRR than any investment in the Corridor. And certainly the case for all those decades where both cities were less than a million in population.

Your previous argument was that VIA Corporate wasn't innovative. In your world does innovative simply imply projects that tickle your feelings with no consideration of costs or returns at all?

Some of you still don't get it. Proposing projects which are not profitable is a recipe for more cuts as governments decide that VIA Corporate has their heads in the clouds. They can't run the Corridor profitably and with OTP in line with rail services elsewhere. And you want them to dig a deeper hole as a sign of "innovation"?

This is why the suggestion of buying the line would be a good solution. It is not a mainline and there could be an agreement to allow freight to use it, but timed with the passenger service. This is the innovation that is lacking.

The Corridor is not profitable. It still has a subsidy. Thinking it needs to be profitable is the problem.

Originally Posted by someone123

What is your the evidence that supports this claim of an absolute guarantee?

A Calgary-Edmonton route could be pretty good. The distance isn't long and both cities have LRT networks that a train could connect up with, making a train much more useful. There's no route like this along The Corridor©™ that does not already have service. Intermodal connections are an important aspect of this that is often overlooked. The current VIA trains are nearly useless for connecting with other services in most of Canada and so they are limited to being expensive tourism type services for rail enthusiasts.

I am also skeptical of the idea that the best strategy for VIA would be to leave all regions but 1 out of passenger rail investment so long as the other regions have a lower ROI, even if they might still have good potential routes. That's a recipe for many voters in the country to stop supporting VIA. I think the only thing saving VIA right now is that the rail corridors are so locked down by CN and CP and VIA is the only entity with exceptions already carved out. If they were run like the public infrastructure they are there would be other passenger rail services around the country.

Even in these times, I highly doubt that we will see rail lines become public again. However, the government could create legislation as to what has priority on the lines.

I do think we should have more passenger rail service throughout Canada. However, partly due to these conversations, I am understanding that what really should be done is look for the "low hanging fruit". Look for places that could be served by rail that isn't and would be a success. As I have said, I am working on the numbers for this. I am going to be looking at various places that seem like they are low hanging fruit.

Originally Posted by esquire

Calgary-Edmonton would make great sense if there was already a high quality route in place with adequate grade separations and that allowed for quick downtown to downtown connections. The problem is that such a thing doesn't exist... the existing lines between Calgary and Edmonton are not really main line quality, and there are tons of level crossings. Edmonton doesn't have tracks going downtown anymore... Whyte Avenue is as good as it gets right now. So you're basically forced to start almost from scratch when it comes to establishing the infrastructure. And I think that's where the case falls apart.

Let's say the government was willing to foot the bill to get the line up to 90mph speeds. That would require changing many of the existing level crossings.

As far as stations, first off, where do you mean on Whyte Ave?

If the government really wanted to, they could build a tunnel to go downtown. If that was a plan, it likely would not be done for a decade or so after the line was up and running.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Look at the Alberta government's own recent study on HSR. We're talking about two metros of say 1.5 million. That's not going to create enough traffic to be profitable unless they have access to cheap tracks already in existence. And they'd have to run at faster speeds than the bus to compete. Not happening without passenger rail priority.

I'm not opposed to building something in this corridor. And I've said before this has to be done after TOM HFR. But the economic model for doing something like that will be a tough sell. Especially with a provincial government that may not want to pitch in. I'm hoping that building TOM HFR will change how Canadians view intercity rail so that we can move to discussing HFR types of service in other corridors. I don't think a milk run would be profitable in AB. But HFR could steal lots of expensive fares from WestJet.

HSR is not what most of us mean. Right now, HSR is not really a discussion in Canada. We talk about it, but then we say that we shouldn't do it for various excuses.

HFR is a good idea. This gives more of a reason to buy up the CP line between the 2 cities.

Originally Posted by someone123

Your posts aren't very consistent though, so it's hard to know what you're arguing. swimmer_spe pointed out that VIA hasn't built "anything" along this corridor, then you replied about any project has a guaranteed worse ROI than service improvements in Ontario or Quebec, and now you are talking about HSR studies. "Anything" and "HSR" are two different proposals.

There is 0 rail service between Calgary and Edmonton right now. I just think that there's probably some > 0 service level that's justifiable. And it's a red flag that in Canada it's considered a big deal and controversial to build a functional passenger rail line between two major metros with LRT systems that are under 300 km apart. We would never have been able to build any major infrastructure prior to 1970 with that attitude.

There seems to be a pattern on this thread that people talk about how much the focus should be on Ontario and Quebec without much nuance or acknowledgement of the huge disparity in service levels. I agree that high-speed rail isn't going to make sense in many places, or maybe anywhere in Canada. But there's a wide range of possibilities between that and the ~0 service or ~useless service that exists in several well-populated regions.

I think you could probably do a "talking to Ontarians" style interview series where you ask people on the street (outside of a pandemic) whether or not finally building an electrical grid in Alberta or Newfoundland would be a good idea and many would easily come up with reasons for why it can't be done.

This is why I feel that several a day each way on the CP line is a good start. Yes, HFR should be done. Yes, better grade separation should be done. However, even if you had 2 trains going both ways several times a day, it would be a start. I know, it is not as good as the Corridor, but that really shouldn't matter. If it does matter, than lets see HFR on all lines.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I think Calgary-Edmonton happens in the next two decades.

But there's no way to sell anybody on any major passenger rail project in Canada without first showing that it can be profitable in a corridor with tens of millions of annual pax.

Keep in mind that HFR was first meant to be executed with private sector funding. And the proposal was pitched that way after VIA Corporate realized that asking for government funding wasn't going anywhere. Ironically, it now looks like a great public sector project for stimulus. Let's hope it actually gets built by 2025. That construction and operational experience will give VIA enough knowledge to start bidding for a Calgary-Edmonton line.

HFR on the Corridor will not make it profitable. The only way to make it profitable is jacking the fares up. Doing that would then cause the ridership to drop, which means more subsidy. So, we must accept that no line will ever be profitable.

However, HFR likely will put more people in the seats. That is a good thing.
Still wont make the subsidy disappear.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by someone123

You're adding extra meaning to my posts that I'm not writing and didn't intend. I didn't say that any specific rail project for the Calgary-Edmonton corridor will cost $1B. My point is that it is common for us to look at dollar figures and this makes capital expenditures look relatively imposing and recurring payouts or future commitments look less significant than they are. We therefore have a bias against capital spending and toward transfers and recurring spending.

Transfers and entitlements have grown much more as a percentage of our spending in Canada than capital spending or maintenance on physical infrastructure. We can't build rail ROWs but we can increase health care spending by 5% a year.

If we adjusted our norms upward when it comes to what is or isn't a reasonable level of spending on capital projects, suddenly a bunch of stuff would look possible, and the impact on our budgets might amount to a fraction of a year of 2000's swollen health care and retirement spending.

The "what region has the best ROI?" question is not a great way to look at this regardless of our capital spending levels. Canadians live in different regions with comparatively little mobility between them. Canadians demand that their home region have good service levels. They're not going to support sending all of their tax money someplace they never see because it has a better ROI.

That is the best answer I have seen. The new Eglinton line will cost over $5 billion. It is not even going to be a subway. So, billions for a ~300km line to serve around 3 million people, that would be worth it. That would be about $1000 per person. That is cheap!

Originally Posted by milomilo

The 407 is a good example. I've only been on it once, but was impressed. I don't particularly like the whole concept of that toll road, but you are right, the toll price is self evidently worth it for the product.

If VIA could make HFR profitable (and I know there are different ways of defining that), it would be fantastic. I don't by any means think that a rail line has to be profitable to be worth operating (any non-toll road wouldn't meet that criteria), but it was more expensive to shut down rail service on the corridor than keep it, it would be effectively immune from politicians trying to shut it down, and VIA would have real credibility.

The issue is the price is quite high. This is why private services for single service type things, like rail or roads is a bad idea. However, private operators paid by the government, but one that does not set the price of the service, is the better way.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

HFR on the Corridor will not make it profitable. The only way to make it profitable is jacking the fares up. Doing that would then cause the ridership to drop, which means more subsidy. So, we must accept that no line will ever be profitable.

However, HFR likely will put more people in the seats. That is a good thing.
Still wont make the subsidy disappear.

You've clearly not read enough about HFR. The proposal as it stands should be operationally profitable. Even to the point of returning capital. That was the only way it could be pitched to institutional investors like the pension funds. There's no point even attempting to pitch it if the cash flow wasn't there. Institutional investors aren't in the business of burning cash for public benefit.

I'm not going to regurgitate the facts here because for once I want you to put in the effort to educate yourself instead of arguing here.

While HFR might not make VIA as a whole profitable, it will mean no more subsidies for the Corridor. And hopefully enough of a profit that VIA might be able to invest elsewhere.

It's insane that the Corridor is subsidized when the traffic levels and population densities are there to have a service that is operationally profitable as a minimum. And most likely able to provide a return on capex.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The Corridor is not profitable. It still has a subsidy. Thinking it needs to be profitable is the problem.

I agree. But government after government disagrees. And that is why there will be no rail investment until HFR can demonstrate a return. Simple as that.

Here's reality. Ministers and MPs look at a $4B (nominal) price tag for HFR and start daydreaming of the votes they can buy. That averages out to $12M per riding. Can you think of what your MP can do with $12M in your riding?

This is the end result of all those decades of hating on big cities, demonizing them and constantly resenting investment that largely benefited them. Now that Calgary and Edmonton are big cities they are seeing the flip side of those politics. When we start seeing the federal government entirely as transactional and all about a funding source instead of a force for national unity, this is the kind of policy you get.

And if $4-8B to connect the 12M Canadian who live along a TOMQ line is challenging, just wait till the debate start on $2-4B on the ECL line connecting just 3.5M starts. This is why I say HFR is such a test. If it fails, so will passenger rail in Canada. It's do it die.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

That is the best answer I have seen. The new Eglinton line will cost over $5 billion. It is not even going to be a subway. So, billions for a ~300km line to serve around 3 million people, that would be worth it. That would be about $1000 per person. That is cheap!

This is exactly the kind of anti-big city nonsense I was referring to. I suggest you look up projected annual ridership for the Eglinton Crosstown. Hint: It's higher than total transit ridership in most Canadian cities excluding Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. Even in terms of passenger-kms, no intercity rail line would come close.

[milomilo]

I was going to post something similar to the above post. While I think most of us support building out intercity rail for the long term benefits, it's also true that public transit works in big cities probably have a more immediate benefit to far more users.

That was the argument way back when against spending money on HSR in Alberta - why spend money on intercity rail when the LRTs in Calgary and Edmonton are not built out? Of course, it would be better to build both and we probably could afford to, but if we have to choose one or the other, it's the city transit that makes more sense.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I was going to post something similar to the above post. While I think most of us support building out intercity rail for the long term benefits, it's also true that public transit works in big cities probably have a more immediate benefit to far more users.

That was the argument way back when against spending money on HSR in Alberta - why spend money on intercity rail when the LRTs in Calgary and Edmonton are not built out? Of course, it would be better to build both and we probably could afford to, but if we have to choose one or the other, it's the city transit that makes more sense.

That is because you are not thinking of the far reaching effects.

Let's say you want to give up a car. You could argue that the LRT/Skytrain/Metro/Subway is the answer. That is narrow minded. To give up a car means not only local, but intercity transit is good.

The Corridor is so successful because it links large cities with other large cities that have higher order transit. This means there is no real need for parking garages like at an airport.

It is conceivable that someone that works from home in a smaller community with a station on the Corridor could give up their car. They have access to the necessary means to do so.

Via is not for local transportation. It is for intercity travel. Money for transit is usually a local and provincial thing. Money for Via usually comes from the federal government only.

[milomilo]

VIA carries 4.4 million passengers a year, essentially entirely in the corridor. The CTrain carries 87 million. Toronto's subway over 200 million. Ottawa's BRT 90+ million, the Montreal subway 354 million (wow!). Numbers are important, and the numbers show that city transit carries orders of magnitudes more people than VIA does. While I support the improvement of intercity rail, I don't think it is unjustified to send more resources to the cities.

Essentially, every person in the Montreal - Toronto corridor rides on VIA once every three years. That's pretty dismal and I think can be improved vastly, but the numbers are what they are.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Let's say the government was willing to foot the bill to get the line up to 90mph speeds. That would require changing many of the existing level crossings.

As far as stations, first off, where do you mean on Whyte Ave?

If the government really wanted to, they could build a tunnel to go downtown. If that was a plan, it likely would not be done for a decade or so after the line was up and running.

A tunnel to downtown would be impossible because of the river valley, so it would have to be a bridge, but I take your point.

The CP tracks to Calgary used to cross the High Level Bridge into downtown Edmonton where there was a station at Jasper Avenue. But that connection was severed long ago... the tracks end at 82nd Ave (Whyte Avenue) on the south side of Edmonton. The old vintage station is still there.

I suppose that an ambitious, well funded project could find a way to put the High Level Bridge back into rail service, but there is not much room to build a rail terminal along 109 St which is where it would likely go. There would be some very pricy land acquisition involved. And that's just a tiny portion of the project... you'd basically be redoing the line between Calgary-Edmonton from scratch.

someone123 mentioned the possibility of parking the idea of HSR and starting with some level of service that is greater than zero. That's exactly what was on that line for the 70s and up to the mid 80s when service ended. A dayliner that was slower than driving, and had a reputation for being generally seedy and getting into lots of level crossing collisions. And that was during an era when Western Canadians were more predisposed to taking trains, as there was much more service. Another attempt like that would be doomed to failure.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

VIA carries 4.4 million passengers a year, essentially entirely in the corridor. The CTrain carries 87 million. Toronto's subway over 200 million. Ottawa's BRT 90+ million, the Montreal subway 354 million (wow!). Numbers are important, and the numbers show that city transit carries orders of magnitudes more people than VIA does. While I support the improvement of intercity rail, I don't think it is unjustified to send more resources to the cities.

Essentially, every person in the Montreal - Toronto corridor rides on VIA once every three years. That's pretty dismal and I think can be improved vastly, but the numbers are what they are.

Which is why HFR makes sense.

Now, what about AB? Should that be ignored, or should something start there? Maybe not HFR, but scheduled rail.
https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/chung/chungtext/items/1.0356724#p23z-3r0f:
Historically, it would take about 4 hours.

So, if you had a train start in each city, leave at the same time, they could go back and forth several times a day. That would be the minimum I would suggest. If they were reasonably well used, add a 2nd set. So, 4 trains going back and forth. This would add good service.

The biggest challenge would be how many trains CP runs a day. Depending on that number, this line could end up being upgraded to be HFR. Ironically, that is the only piece of the puzzle I cannot find.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by esquire

A tunnel to downtown would be impossible because of the river valley, so it would have to be a bridge, but I take your point.

The CP tracks to Calgary used to cross the High Level Bridge into downtown Edmonton where there was a station at Jasper Avenue. But that connection was severed long ago... the tracks end at 82nd Ave (Whyte Avenue) on the south side of Edmonton. The old vintage station is still there.

I suppose that an ambitious, well funded project could find a way to put the High Level Bridge back into rail service, but there is not much room to build a rail terminal along 109 St which is where it would likely go. There would be some very pricy land acquisition involved. And that's just a tiny portion of the project... you'd basically be redoing the line between Calgary-Edmonton from scratch.

someone123 mentioned the possibility of parking the idea of HSR and starting with some level of service that is greater than zero. That's exactly what was on that line for the 70s and up to the mid 80s when service ended. A dayliner that was slower than driving, and had a reputation for being generally seedy and getting into lots of level crossing collisions. And that was during an era when Western Canadians were more predisposed to taking trains, as there was much more service. Another attempt like that would be doomed to failure.

So, why not dig a tunnel to the edge of the river and put a new bridge in?

Or, leave the stations as they are, and get things going. Once there is a high demand, build a new line, possibly underground, to downtown.

Bringing back rail traffic on the High Level Bridge might work, if there was a place the train could go on the surface. So, instead of trying to figure this out, why not get it running and have it terminate at the existing Via Station, while also stopping at other locations in the city.